Appeal No. 2006-2337
Application No. 10/887,181
THE REJECTION AT ISSUE
Claims 47 through 50, 56, 59 and 60 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Chow in view of Pryor. The examiner’s rejection is set forth on
pages 3 and 4 of the answer. Claims 51 through 55, 57 and 58 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chow in view of Pryor and Johnson. The
examiner’s rejection is set forth on pages 4 and 5 of the answer. Throughout the opinion
we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections
advanced by the examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the examiner
as support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration,
in reaching our decision, appellants’ arguments set forth in the briefs along with the
examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the
examiner’s answer.
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the
examiner’s rejections and the arguments of appellants and the examiner, for the reasons
stated infra we will not sustain the examiner’s rejections of claims 47 through 60 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellants argue, on pages 6 and 7 of the brief, that one skilled in the art would not
be motivated to use a machine tool sensor such as taught by Pryor in a dunnage
dispensing system such a Chow. Further, on page 7 of the brief, appellants assert that
Chow’s teaching of a dunnage dispensing system rejects detecting the volume of a box.
Appellants argue that the examiner has not provided evidence which would suggest to
one skilled in the art that Chow’s system should be modified to measure the volume of
the box.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007